Last week President Obama gave his “Climate Change” speech. After the speech I posted about his punt on Keystone XL. However, one thing has been bothering me since the speech: where did the President get his information to back up these words:
So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.
Really? 97% of scientists agree the climate change debate is over? Where did the President get such an overwhelmingly high statistic; one that also happens to back up his assertions. The Independent Institute helps to clear this mystery up. Here is what Mary Theroux had to say on the The Beacon blog:
Or the March 2012 study, showing that a mere 32.6% of 11,994 academic, peer-reviewed articles over the past 10 years endorse the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), with 66.4% stating no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejecting AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Yet in a clever twist of the statistics, the study was used to “prove” a 97% “consensus” on AGW. Here’s how it was done:
Taking out the 66.4% of studies that stated “no position” on AGW, the pro-AGW activists summed the 32.6% of the papers endorsing AGW, the 0.7% rejecting, and the 0.3% uncertain to narrow the set down to 4,000 papers. Of those 4,000 papers, 97% said that recent warming is mostly man made
Ahh, that explains it. The “statistic” touted by President Obama is not 97% of scientific research done on the subject. Rather this statistic has removed any scientific research that did not “take a stance”. So by removing the studies that focus purely on scientific method, the study cited by President Obama is able to concentrate on science research that was “out to prove” climate change. The study quoted by President Obama is interesting, but it definitely does not prove what he is stating it is. Actually if anything the President has discredited his whole Climate Change speech by relying upon this easily debunked statistic.
Going forward this lack of credibility must be brought into the “debate” started by President Obama as he proceeds with his Climate Change Action Plan. No matter how anyone feels about the ‘climate change’ debate one thing should be agreed upon: Using executive orders to implement a climate change agenda based upon junk science is definitely not in the best interest for the United States economy at this time.